Multi-Criteria Relationship Analysis of Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude of Stakeholders for Engagement towards Maritime Pollution at Sea, Beach, and Coastal Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors proposed a integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making method for assessing the relationship between knowledge, perception, and attitude of the stakeholders regarding their engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal  environments.  However, there are some issues that should be revised by the author.
 
- The research gap is unclear. A comprehensive table should be presented by the authors to show the literature review based on their assumptions, methods, and results.
- The use of the SMART technique as MCDM is unclear. This part needs to be clarified.
- How we can judge about these results? Comparisons with existing models from the literature are missing. Discuss your improvements.

- The authors should enrich their results by using more figures.
- In conclusions, the authors should elaborate more on the practical implications of their study, as well as the limitations of the study.
- In this document two tables are named Table 1.
- The relevant and recent references should be added in the paper.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2056601

 

Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments

 

Response Sheet - Reviewer 1

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments about our manuscript titled “Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments” (ID: sustainability-2056601). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully, incorporated all necessary corrections which seemed technically sound, and prepared our arguments for the query as considered pertinent in terms of difference in opinion on logical grounds. We hope it meets the required level for your kind approval. All changes in the paper are done in track change mode in the submitted version of the document. We have also marked text in color as well, where we felt necessary vis-à-vis reply to the comments. The following are responses to the comments.

 

Points to ponder: (“C “means Comment, “R” means Response)

 

Reviewer 1: The authors proposed a integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making method for assessing the relationship between knowledge, perception, and attitude of the stakeholders regarding their engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments.  However, there are some issues that should be revised by the author.

C1: The research gap is unclear. A comprehensive table should be presented by the authors to show the literature review based on their assumptions, methods, and results.

R1: Thank you for your comment. It is reported that the Introduction (Line 144-151, highlighted in Green) specifies the need for the study given the business-as-usual case of pollution in Karachi city. Additionally, given the fact that no such study has been done in the context of maritime pollution in Karachi, relevant comparisons could not be made. However, Line 88-94 of Introduction refers to the use of chosen variables in the previous studies and how these are not yet done for maritime pollution.

 

C2: The use of the SMART technique as MCDM is unclear. This part needs to be clarified.

R2: Thank you very much for your valuable comment and for giving us an opportunity to improve our manuscript. We evaluated many potential methods to assess the data while developing the research methodology (as successfully applied in “Multi-Variable Governance Index Modeling of Government’s Policies, Legal and Institutional Strategies, and Management for Climate Compatible and Sustainable Agriculture Development, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811763”; “A multi-criteria evaluation of policy instruments for climate change mitigation in the power generation sector of Trinidad and Tobago, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.034”; and “Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601925 ”) and we decided upon the SMART method as it allows the quantification of responses, which is essential for the Pearson Correlation Analysis as well as for studying Criteria and Indicators independently. This rationale is provided under heading 2.5 Development of the questionnaire. However, to combat the ambiguity, we have expanded on the use of SMART in line 221-222, highlighted in Yellow.

 

C3: How we can judge about these results? Comparisons with existing models from the literature are missing. Discuss your improvements.

R3: Thank you for highlighting this aspect. Since it is a novel study unique to Karachi city, and no such study has been undertaken before, the comparisons of similar models on pollution as discussed could not be made. However, the literature has effectively considered the interconnection between the key variables i.e., Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude as studied by various scholarly publications in the form of a network diagram (Figure 1) – duly referred to in the Introduction as reference numbers 20-25, and in Methodological Framework as reference numbers 48-51 (highlighted in Blue). The Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections also reflect the findings that the interconnection between the variables is not as strong in the case of Karachi city as was found in reviewed studies.

 

C4: The authors should enrich their results by using more figures.

R4: Thank you for the kind suggestion. The reason we have added graphs for each Criteria of every Principle is to keep the results concise yet explanatory. We also tried to add figures of each indicator but given the big number of Indicators, the manuscript was getting overwhelming. It is kindly proposed to keep the current number of figures, which is now being compensated by the additional explanation we have added to elaborate the graphs for each Principle, highlighted in Yellow.

 

C5: In conclusions, the authors should elaborate more on the practical implications of their study, as well as the limitations of the study.

R5: The recommendation is duly acknowledged, and a separate sub-heading 4.3 titled “Practical Implications of Results” is added under Heading 4: Discussion, highlighted in Yellow.           

 

C6: In this document two tables are named Table 1.

R6: Thank you for highlighting it. We have revisited the numbering of tables and figures in the manuscript.

 

C7: The relevant and recent references should be added in the paper.

 

R7: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have incorporated references particularly by targeting the years 2021 and 2022 in the manuscript where deemed appropriate. You may kindly appreciate that we have added 15 more citations; taking the number of references from 50 to 65 in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your efforts on the preparation of the study with an interesting idea.

It is indicated that the paper consists a MCDA analysis with SMART method, but the results of SMART seems a bit problematic. All the results presented are integers and as it is written in the paper that the authors contacted with more than 300 people. That doesn't seem sensible based on the scale they use and the number of people. This is an important problem about the data collection and processing procedure.

Conclusions do not related to the findings of the correlation analysis.

I couldn't see the benefits of insertion of SMART method into correlation analysis.

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2056601

 

Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments

 

Response Sheet - Reviewer 2

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments about our manuscript titled “Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments” (ID: sustainability-2056601). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully, incorporated all necessary corrections which seemed technically sound, and prepared our arguments for the query as considered pertinent in terms of difference in opinion on logical grounds. We hope it meets the required level for your kind approval. All changes in the paper are done in track change mode in the submitted version of the document. We have also marked text in color as well, where we felt necessary vis-à-vis reply to the comments. The following are responses to the comments.

 

Points to ponder: (“C “means Comment, “R” means Response)

 

Reviewer 2: Thanks for your efforts on the preparation of the study with an interesting idea.

 

C1: It is indicated that the paper consists a MCDA analysis with SMART method, but the results of SMART seems a bit problematic. All the results presented are integers and as it is written in the paper that the authors contacted with more than 300 people. That doesn't seem sensible based on the scale they use and the number of people. This is an important problem about the data collection and processing procedure.

R1: Thank you very much for your valuable comment and for giving us an opportunity to improve our manuscript. We evaluated many potential methods to assess the data while developing the research methodology (as successfully applied in “Multi-Variable Governance Index Modeling of Government’s Policies, Legal and Institutional Strategies, and Management for Climate Compatible and Sustainable Agriculture Development, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811763”; “A multi-criteria evaluation of policy instruments for climate change mitigation in the power generation sector of Trinidad and Tobago, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.034”; and “Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601925 ”) and we decided upon the SMART method as it allows the quantification of responses, which is essential for the Pearson Correlation Analysis as well as for studying Criteria and Indicators independently. This rationale is provided under heading 2.5 Development of the questionnaire. However, to combat the ambiguity, we have expanded on the use of SMART in line 221-222, highlighted in Yellow.

C2: Conclusions do not related to the findings of the correlation analysis.

 

R2: Thank you for the observation. Line 513-515 (highlighted in Purple) in the Conclusion section reiterates the findings of the Correlation analysis. Based on that, further conclusions are drawn regarding stakeholder’s sensitization and needful action.

 

C3: I couldn't see the benefits of insertion of SMART method into correlation analysis.

 

R3: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We evaluated many potential methods to assess the data while developing the research methodology (as successfully applied in “Multi-Variable Governance Index Modeling of Government’s Policies, Legal and Institutional Strategies, and Management for Climate Compatible and Sustainable Agriculture Development, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811763”; “A multi-criteria evaluation of policy instruments for climate change mitigation in the power generation sector of Trinidad and Tobago, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.034”; and “Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601925 ”) and we decided upon the SMART method as it allows the quantification of responses, which is essential for the Pearson Correlation Analysis as well as for studying Criteria and Indicators independently. This rationale is provided under heading 2.5: Development of the questionnaire.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study of substantial behavioral approach of the stakeholders and current standing of the stakeholders to respond to the multifaceted challenge of pollution is a very important research topic. However, this MS must be improved with the following suggestions:

In the introduction the authors could make reference to other relevant literature in the field related to Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude of different stakeholders for pollution prevention (i.e. Nita A., Fineran S., Rozylowicz L. (2022) Researchers’ perspective on the main strengths and weaknesses of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 92, 106690).

Figures 3 – 6 – data provided in each single graph should be summarized in one single graph.

The comment is the same also for Figures 7, 8, 9, 10  that graphically depict the criteria-wise results 301 breakdown for Principle 2. Authors should find a way to illustrate in a more attractive manner from an scientific point of view.

The results section needs further attention and description of results – just mentioning in the text 4 figures and not say anything about them is not presenting the results of a research.

I don’t understand why Table 1 is referenced in the text in section  2.5 Development of the questionnaire but first appears in the text at results section - 3.1 Results – Principle 1: Knowledge About Marine Pollution but it’s not even mentioned here. – Could it be due to the fact that in the manuscript there are two table 1…..?!

Also, table 4 is missing…. In the manuscript there are 2 table 1,and 1 table 2, 3, 5, Tables 1, 2,3 under results section are not referenced in the text so this section is very hard to follow.

The results should be presented clearly and analyzed appropriately in the text. Please justify in the discussions how your results are deemed accurate and reliable.

Please also elaborate if current study is consistent with findings from past and recent studies in other country settings. The discussion should include further elaborations on the previous findings regarding stakeholders’ attitude (i.e. Gavrilidis A.A. et al. (2022) Past local industrial disasters and involvement of NGOs stimulate public participation in transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 324: 116271) in relation to the existing ones and also what are the differences and your contributions.

It would be much better if the theoretical and practical implications could be further strengthened.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2056601

 

Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments

 

Response Sheet - Reviewer 3

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments about our manuscript titled “Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments” (ID: sustainability-2056601). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully, incorporated all necessary corrections which seemed technically sound, and prepared our arguments for the query as considered pertinent in terms of difference in opinion on logical grounds. We hope it meets the required level for your kind approval. All changes in the paper are done in track change mode in the submitted version of the document. We have also marked text in color as well, where we felt necessary vis-à-vis reply to the comments. The following are responses to the comments.

 

Points to ponder: (“C “means Comment, “R” means Response)

 

Reviewer 3: The study of substantial behavioral approach of the stakeholders and current standing of the stakeholders to respond to the multifaceted challenge of pollution is a very important research topic. However, this MS must be improved with the following suggestions:

 

C1: In the introduction the authors could make reference to other relevant literature in the field related to Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude of different stakeholders for pollution prevention (i.e. Nita A., Fineran S., Rozylowicz L. (2022) Researchers’ perspective on the main strengths and weaknesses of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 92, 106690).

 

R1: Thank you so much for the pertinent suggestion. We have referred to the suggested article in the Introduction section (Line 177, Reference 47, highlighted in Blue).

 

C2: Figures 3 – 6 – data provided in each single graph should be summarized in one single graph.

 

R2: Thank you for the kind suggestion. The reason we have added graphs for each Criteria of every Principle is to keep the results clear, legible and easy to understand by all kinds of stakeholders and research groups. However, considering your suggestion, we tried to consolidate them all in one graph for each Principle but it was getting too complex to read, understand and decipher. Moreover, that way, we were not able to depict the Indicator-wise results like we are able to in the current format. We hope that you would appreciate our genuine effort towards it and agree with our argument on logical grounds.

 

C3: The comment is the same also for Figures 7, 8, 9, 10  that graphically depict the criteria-wise results 301 breakdown for Principle 2. Authors should find a way to illustrate in a more attractive manner from an scientific point of view.

 

R3: Thank you for the kind suggestion. The reason we have added graphs for each Criteria of every Principle is to keep the results clean and legible. We had tried consolidating them all in one graph for each Principle but it was getting complex to read and decipher. Moreover, that way, we were not able to depict the Indicator-wise results like we are able to in the current format.

 

C4: The results section needs further attention and description of results – just mentioning in the text 4 figures and not say anything about them is not presenting the results of a research.

 

R4: The kind recommendation is duly acknowledged, and we have added significant description of the results after each Principle’s figures (highlighted in Yellow) elaborating on each Criteria and its subsequent Indicator-wise results.

 

C5: I don’t understand why Table 1 is referenced in the text in section  2.5 Development of the questionnaire but first appears in the text at results section - 3.1 Results – Principle 1: Knowledge About Marine Pollution but it’s not even mentioned here. – Could it be due to the fact that in the manuscript there are two table 1…..?!

 

R5: Thank you for highlighting the matter. We have resolved this by revisiting the Table numbering in the manuscript.

 

C6: Also, table 4 is missing…. In the manuscript there are 2 table 1,and 1 table 2, 3, 5, Tables 1, 2,3 under results section are not referenced in the text so this section is very hard to follow.

 

R6: Thank you for highlighting this. Table 4 is titled as Criteria-wise Attitude Index in the manuscript. To clarify, we have referenced    Tables 2,3 and 4 in their respective Principle’s Results heading 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, highlighted in Green.

 

C7: The results should be presented clearly and analyzed appropriately in the text. Please justify in the discussions how your results are deemed accurate and reliable.

 

R7: Your suggestion is highly acknowledged. For clarifying the above point, we have added a detailed breakdown of the cumulative results of each Principle at the end of their respective figures (highlighted in Yellow) elaborating on each Criteria and its subsequent Indicator-wise results that provide support to the statements and assertions made in Discussion section. 

 

C8: Please also elaborate if current study is consistent with findings from past and recent studies in other country settings. The discussion should include further elaborations on the previous findings regarding stakeholders’ attitude (i.e. Gavrilidis A.A. et al. (2022) Past local industrial disasters and involvement of NGOs stimulate public participation in transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 324: 116271) in relation to the existing ones and also what are the differences and your contributions.

 

R8: Thank you for highlighting this aspect. We report that the novel study has uniquely been aimed at assessing the case of Karachi city, which has never been undertaken before as per the reviewed literature. However, the literature has evaluated the interconnection between the key variables i.e., Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude as studied by various scholarly publications in the form of a network diagram (Figure 1) – duly referred to in the Introduction as reference numbers 20-25, and in Methodological Framework as reference numbers 48-51 (highlighted in Blue). The Result section also reports that the interconnection between the variables is not as strong in the case of Karachi city as was found in reviewed studies.

 

C9: It would be much better if the theoretical and practical implications could be further strengthened.

R9: The recommendation is duly acknowledged, and a separate heading titled Practical Implications of Results is added under Heading 4: Results.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to accept this paper

Author Response

Thank you for sparing time to review our research paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your efforts on preparing a revised version. I feel that you removed my concerns which I indicated in the second and third comments in round 1. But I am not happy that you provide the same response to my first and third comments. Therefore, I would like to ask again the following question. Please do not refer to any points in text, just answer the question.

Is it normal to obtain an integer value as a result of collecting data from 300 people?

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2056601

 

Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments

 

Response Sheet – Peer Review Round 2

 

Reviewer 2

 

Dear Reviewer,

Your acknowledgment for accepting the changes incorporated by us against your comments in round 1 is highly inspiring. We are highly grateful to you. We also appreciate your outstanding query for which we have prepared a clarification statement accordingly. We hope it will satisfy your concern on logical grounds. Following is our response to your comments in Blue text.

 

Comment 1 – Round 2: Thanks for your efforts on preparing a revised version. I feel that you removed my concerns which I indicated in the second and third comments in round 1.

 

Reply to Comment 1 – Round 2: We are highly grateful to you for your endorsement.

 

Comment 2 – Round 2: But I am not happy that you provide the same response to my first and third comments. Therefore, I would like to ask again the following question. Please do not refer to any points in a text, just answer the question.

Is it normal to obtain an integer value as a result of collecting data from 300 people?

 

Reply to Comment 2 – Round 2: Thanks for your comment. It is pertinent that surveys for opinion-related primary data collection can be done by employing either a qualitative or quantitative approach. The qualitative research approach is frequently used to study the nature of phenomena by gathering and relying on non-numerical data upon which no statistical test can be run. As a result, the element of biasness always dominates as a limitation for the study due to which some important dimensions are mostly overlooked during the analysis.

 

Whereas quantitative methods are used for the purpose of numerical data (integers) to have a better picture with precise results against the set objective for a study through the application of various statistical packages. For a quantitative study, different scales (Ratio, Ordinal, Nominal, etc.) are used by employing the SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) on the questionnaire so that the feedback of the respondents can be acquired in integers through survey against a defined sample size under the scope of the study upon which statistical analysis can be done subsequently. It is important to mention here that we have already furnished references as part of the submission during round 1 in this regard. In the overall context, we would like to clarify that our study is based on a quantitative method in which we fixed the SMART Ratio scale on our questionnaire (based on indicators for Principles and Criteria) to collect opinion-based primary data through the feedback from respondents against a defined sample size of more than 300 people. In a nutshell, we would like to highlight that integer value is specific to all those studies which employ quantitative methods, irrespective of their sample sizes. It is the sample size that determines the size of the dataset (how big, how small) and the level of effort required during the survey, data entry (based on integers), data cleaning, and analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The ms is much improved, nevertheless I still think that figures 3-6 are not appropriate for a scientific paper - they are so simple and not saying that much - still these figures take up so much space in the article - why not cumulate them into a single figure? The same observation for figures 7-10, 11-14.

Line 282 - Table 2 not 1, 

Line 325 - Table 3 not 2, 

Line 381 - Table 4 not 3,  same in line 383

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2056601

 

Multi-criteria relationship analysis of knowledge, perception, and attitude of stakeholders for engagement towards maritime pollution at sea, beach, and coastal environments

 

Response Sheet – Peer Review Round 2

Reviewer 3

 

Dear Reviewer,

We are highly grateful to you for endorsing the changes done us against your comments in peer review round 1. We also appreciate your comments in round 2 for which we have done needful accordingly. We hope it will meet the requirement for your kind approval. Following is a response to your comments in Blue text, while amendments are incorporated in the manuscript by using track-change mode.

 

Comment 1 – Round 2: The ms is much improved, nevertheless I still think that figures 3-6 are not appropriate for a scientific paper - they are so simple and do not say that much - still these figures take up so much space in the article - why not cumulate them into a single figure? The same observation is for figures 7-10, 11-14.

 

Reply to Comment 1 – Round 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comment regarding figures/graphs. Now, we have developed and incorporated four new graphs (i.e. Figures 3, 4, 5, & 6) for the presentation of results and deleted all 12 old figures from the Results part. Figure 3 depicts the Overall Index of all three Principles i.e. Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude. Whereas, Figures 4, 5 & 6 show graphical radars for cumulative Criteria-wise breakdown of results for Knowledge, Perception, and Attitude respectively. We hope you would appreciate the work done in accordance with your suggestion.

 

Comment 2 – Round 2: Line 282 - Table 2 not 1, Line 325 - Table 3 not 2, Line 381 - Table 4 not 3,  same in line 383

 

Reply to Comment 2 – Round 2: Thank you very much for highlighting the important correction.  We have double-checked all serial numbers of tables and graphs at all places including their labeling and in-text referencing.  We hope you would appreciate it.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions are successful.